- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3557 CRL.P No. 100224 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100224 OF 2025 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: ANANDA @ ANAND S/O. PAKKIRAPPA, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. FACTORY WORKER, R/O. SANDUR-HOSAPETE MAIN ROAD, SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, TQ. SANDUR, BALLARI-583119. … PETITIONER (BY SRI B.ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH THORANAGALLU P.S.BALLARI), REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD-01. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDE SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN SC NO.82/2024 IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.119/2024 REGISTERED IN THORANAGALLU POLICE STATION BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 103(1) OF BNS, PENDING TRAIL OF THE CASE BEFORE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.21 14:52:46 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3557 CRL.P No. 100224 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short,) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.119/2024 by Thoranagallu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 103 (1) of Bharatiya Nyana Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’ for short). 2. Sri Anwar Basha B., learned counsel for petitioner submitted as per prosecution case that, at about 7:00 p.m., on 20.07.2024 complaint was filed by Sri Lokesh stating that he was residing with his parents at Rajapura village of Sandur taluk. It was stated complainant along with his two sisters were children of their parents whereas his sister Anita was married to one Mallikarjuna at about 6 years ago and within a week of their marriage she returned to paternal home and residing with complainant. It was stated that complainant and his father used to go on duty for more than 24 hours, leaving Anita alone at home. It was further stated petitioner was brother of Smt. Vandramma @ Mallamma a neighbor of complainant and who often visited his sister house. During such visit he had - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3557 CRL.P No. 100224 of 2025 befriended Anita and they use to speak with each other often despite complainant’s objection. When they found petitioner was visiting their house in their absence, they had warned victim against it. It was further stated that Anita would often be away from home for several days, on pretext of visiting relatives house. When, it was found that she was going away with petitioner and even he was coming to their home often, she had told him that she intended to marry petitioner. But when they enquired, petitioner told them that he was already married and had children and therefore refused to marry her. Informing same, they had asked her to stay away from him and maintain their dignity. 3. On 09.07.2024, complainant and his father had left for work, leaving Anita alone at home. On 11.07.2024, when he returned at 9:00 a.m., Anita was missing. He called his father to enquire about her. His father told him that she was missing on previous day, when he had come home. Thinking that she would return within few days, they waited. 4. On 17.07.2024, they came to know about murder of women in Malapur forest. Next day when photos/videos of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3557 CRL.P No. 100224 of 2025 victim were circulated, complainant’s father identified it as Anita. On enquiry in village, he was informed that she was seen going with petitioner on his motorcycle at about 1:00 p.m. on 09.07.2024. Alleging that petitioner had abused Anita’s trust had sexual relationship with her, and when she insisted him to marry her, he had taken her to forest area and murdered her. 5. It was submitted, initially on finding of dead body of a woman, UDR.no.23/2024 was registered. After identification of same as Anita (victim) and receipt of complaint, Crime no.119/2024 was registered for above mentioned offences. 6. It was submitted, even as per complainant, victim was found missing on 09.07.2024. However, complaint was filed only on 20.07.2024 thus there was delay in filing complaint. It was further submitted, In Postmortem Examination Report (‘PMER’), Medical Officer had stated that due to “soft tissue missing on neck, alleged manner of death could not be ascertained.” Thus, very basis of prosecution case about murder of victim would be in serious doubt. 7. It was further submitted when there were no eye- witnesses, prosecution case would be purely circumstantial and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3557 CRL.P No. 100224 of 2025 based on statement of CW-19, who had merely stated to have seen victim with petitioner on his motorcycle. It was also submitted, statement of CW-19 was unreliable as it was recorded on 17.10.2024 i.e. after more than three months of incident. And insofar as manner of murder, prosecution case was totally dependent on voluntary statement of petitioner recorded while he was in custody after his arrest on 21.07.2024. It was submitted, confessional statement would be weak form of evidence and could not readily be relied upon. 8. It was lastly submitted, reliance upon call detail records to co-relate location of petitioner and victim nearby place of incident would also be inconclusive and would not directly implicate petitioner for murder of victim. Learned counsel relied upon decision of High Court of Bombay in Tejas Nandkumar Awale v. State of Maharashtra, in Criminal Bail Application no.1159/2022 disposed of on 23.12.2022. On above ground sought for allowing petition. 9. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent – State sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, there were clear averments about motive for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3557 CRL.P No. 100224 of 2025 murder mentioned in complaint that petitioner had illicit relationship with victim and when she insisted on marriage, he had murdered her. It was submitted, in his voluntary statement, petitioner had admitted to commission of murder. It was further submitted, circumstantial evidence inform of CW- 19 who had stated to have seen petitioner going on his motorcycle towards spot of incident as well as call detail records which co-related location of petitioner and victim near spot of incident duly corroborated prosecution case. It was submitted, prosecution had recorded statements of 39 witnesses and filed charge-sheet on 17.10.2024 having found sufficient material to prima facie substantiate offences. On above grounds, sought for rejection of bail. 10. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 11. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail on conditions?” 12. This petition is by sole accused for regular bail in Crime no.119/2024 by Thoranagallu Police Station for offences - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3557 CRL.P No. 100224 of 2025 punishable under Sections 103 (1) of BNS, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, nature of offence would be heinous. 13. At outset it is seen complaint was filed on 20.07.2024, about 11 days after date of incident which occurred on 09.07.2024. Secondly, prosecution case in charge- sheet shows it to be heavily dependent on confessional statement of petitioner, which as per ratio in Ratnu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1667 and Randeep Singh @ Rana and Anr. v. State of Haryana, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3383, would be acceptable only under certain condition. Otherwise, it is generally considered to be weak form of evidence. 14. Thirdly, call detail records of petitioner and victim though at best would indicate their approximate location near place of incident, same by itself, would not appear conclusive about petitioner committing murder of victim. Likewise, statement of CW-19 recorded more than three months after date of incident would at best support last seen theory and which would not be sole basis for conviction in absence of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3557 CRL.P No. 100224 of 2025 prosecution establishing all other circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, condition in which body was found, made it difficult for Medical Officer who conducted postmortem to form opinion as to cause of death, thereby casting serious doubt about homicidal death of victim. However, it would neither be desirable nor appropriate to form any conclusive opinion about commission of offence by petitioner as alleged based on material available at this stage. Same would be matter for trial. Since petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2024 and prosecution completed investigation while petitioner was in custody and filed charge-sheet on 17.10.2024, there would appear no further need for custodial interrogation of petitioner. In view of above circumstances, point for consideration is answered in affirmative. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused is released on bail in Crime no.119/2024 by Thoranagallu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 103 (1) of BNS, subject to following conditions: a) Petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of Court. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3557 CRL.P No. 100224 of 2025 b) Petitioner/accused shall not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. c) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities. d) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. e) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8